Introduction

Two medical "ethicists" (Alberto Giubilini and
Francesca Minerva) from Australia have pronounced that infanticide (killing
babies) should be allowed as a form of "after birth abortion."1
Their logic is that since abortion is allowed in virtually all cases, and since
babies are no more developed than late term fetuses, that killing infants should
be allowed for an unspecified period of time after birth, subject to the whim of
the mother. Although your initial reaction may be shock, the doctors'
conclusions follow logically from arguments commonly made in favor of
unrestricted abortion. This page will examine those arguments and why the
doctors are correct in coming to those conclusions. Before you email me, please
also note that I believe those arguments are fatally flawed, invalidating both infanticide
and abortion.

Personhood argument

The main argument for the unrestricted availability of abortion comes
from what has been called the personhood argument. There can be little doubt
that abortion results in the death of a human being. Although it is supported
with nutrition and respiration through the mother's umbilical cord, the
fetus is a genetically unique individual. Abortion kills that individual. Although abortion was originally
framed as the right of a woman to do whatever she wanted with her own body,
the fetus is not part of a woman's body. Having lost the scientific
argument, abortion proponents have subsequently framed the argument in terms of
"personhood," which is a non-scientific term that has never been fully defined.2
Even so, it is now claimed that the fetus is not a "person," so it
is okay to kill it.
Even so, abortion advocate Susan Sherwin gave the following as a definition of a "person":

"Persons . . . are members of a social community that
shapes and values them, and personhood must be defined in terms of
interactions and relationships with others."3

The definition is perfect for abortion proponents, since the fetus is not
shaped nor valued by the social community. The first thing that one notices
about this definition of personhood is that hermits need not apply to being
considered persons. Obviously, women would be recognized as more valuable
persons, since they have more "interactions and and relationships with
others." Performance-based personhood suffers from numerous problems.
Instead of being valued just for the fact that they are human beings,
performance-based personhood says that people must be actively involved in
social interactions to remain as persons. There is a history of human beings
being classified as "non-persons." First, it was said that Africans were not
persons, which allowed white people to enslave them and breed them like farm
animals. Next, it was said that Chinese laborers were not persons, allowing
them to be overworked and mistreated during the building of the railroads.
Now, the latest class of human "non-persons" are preborns and newborns, and,
according to the definition above, those who are invalids or in a coma.
Logically, non-personhood status could be attached to the majority of
homeless people, who are neither valued by society nor generally have social
interactions with others.

Giubilini and Minerva define personhood in terms of the ability of a
human being to value
one's existence. Accordingly, they say "all the individuals who are not in
the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not
persons." How do they know that infants are incapable "of attributing any
value to their own existence?" Having interacted extensively with three
newborns, I say with confidence that they all valued their nursing time.
They also seemed to react to faces within a few days of birth. How could one
objectively measure the valuing of one's existence? The authors provide no
measure by which such subjective statements can be assessed. Can a one-year-old attribute value to
her
existence? Or a two-year-old?

Logic of infanticide

I should note that Giubilini's and Minerva's article is not just arguing that infanticide
should be permitted in cases where there are severe physical disabilities, but even when
"having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological
health of the woman." So, the claim is that infanticide should be allowed in
all cases where abortion is allowed. The United States
Supreme Court (See Appendix 1) has ruled abortion cannot be restricted at any point prior
to fetal viability (i.e., six months) and cannot be restricted after fetal
viability without an exception for the "health" of the mother. Since "health"
has been broadly defined to include "mental health," abortion is legal in
the United States at any point prior to birth, subject to the whim of the
mother.

The doctors used the following line of logic in arguing that infanticide
should be permitted in all cases:

Both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as
actual persons.

the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant.

Adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people

.

∴ 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is.

Premise number one is defended in the article on performance-based
personhood:

"If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on
the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from
accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth
abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim
yet."1

Since newborns are no more capable of forming "aims" than fetuses, it is
argued that they should be allowed to be killed. It is true that a newborn
cannot form any higher level "aims," other than basic survival desires (i.e.,
suckling). However, I have observed a number of people who's aims are not much
different than that of an infant. Should they be allowed to be killed?
Ultimately, Giubilini and Minerva say that the personhood of an individual
"depends on the level of her mental development, which in turn determines
whether or not she is a person." The obvious problem with this definition is
that allows anybody to kill an infant without actually killing a person.
Attributing personhood based upon "mental development" is rather dicey, since
there are individuals who have the mental development of an infant, but are
valued by others. So, the authors added an exception to their personhood
argument such that value of the infant attributed by the mother suddenly makes
it a person. What happens when the mother no longer values her
mentally-deficient 5-year-old? By Giubilini's and Minerva's definition, the
mother would be allowed to kill the child. Ultimately, the authors fail to
define what neurological marker of "mental development" makes a human being
suddenly become a "person." In fact, they fail to cite any
scientific evidence supporting the criteria for "after birth abortion."

Premise number two is defended on the basis of the non-person status of
of a newborn, which was never fully established from premise one. However, Giubilini
and Minerva continue their logic to establish that killing a newborn
produces no harm:

"If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn,
does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an
actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no
harm at all."1

In case anybody didn't notice, the argument is circular, since the
killing of the baby is what prevents her from becoming a "future person." The
attitude that potential persons cannot be harmed by killing them can lead to
all kinds of irresponsible behavior. For example, the next generation are
only potential persons (especially if they aren't even conceived yet). So,
according to this logic, there would be no harm to those potential persons if we polluted the earth
prior to the time at which they became actual persons. After all, they are only
"potential persons." Giubilini and Minerva say that the rights of potential person are
"over-ridden by the interests of actual people," even if the "rights" of
those actual persons only involve the inconvenience of having to take care
of a healthy newborn ("Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the
new (even if healthy) child").

Premise number three, justifying execution of the child over adoption, is
justified on the basis of the rights of persons vs. "potential persons."
Accordingly Giubilini and Minerva argue that "...however weak the interests
of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of
potential people."1 They continue by
suggesting that adoption might distress the mother:

"On this perspective, the interests of the actual
people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider
the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from
giving her child up for adoption."1

I guess I would like to meet the mother who would be damaged more by
adoption than killing her child.

Legal problems

One of the main problem with Giubilini's and Minerva's argument is that many of the
U.S. state statutes and criminal codes
do not define murder on the basis of personhood, but on the basis of just
being a human being. Here is the definition of murder in the state where I
live:

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199
187.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of
Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.

The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and
surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in
a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth
would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from
childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain
or more likely than not.

The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.

Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.4

One can see from this definition that murder is the malicious killing of a human
being or a fetus. So in order for infanticide or "after birth abortion" to be legalized, it would be
necessary to change all the state laws that define murder as the killing of
a "human being" to the killing of a "person." Here is a list of states and how they define murder:

*Defines an "unborn child" as a "person"
#Uses the word "individual"
$Uses the word "another"

The interesting thing about these states' definitions of murder is that they
are not divided on the basis of red or blue states. The assumption (but
seldom stated) in all
these statutes and criminal codes is that all human beings who are born are
"persons." However, if the courts decide that personhood is
performance-based, then it would be possible for them to declare infants
(and others) as
non-persons, allowing their execution based upon choices of their mothers or
the state.
If you live in one of the states on the left of the table above, you might
want to try to get your legislatures to change the criminal codes for murder
in your state to reflect the killing of a "human being" rather than a
"person."

Sexism in the law

There are other legal problems with "after-birth abortion." In virtually all
states, the father of a newborn is expected to provide support toward the
care of his child. However, under the United States Supreme Court rulings (below),
the father has no legal say about the fate of his unborn child. Since this
paper describes an "after birth abortion," the father would have no legal
say about the execution of his born child, although he would have
to pay for it if the mother suffered it to live. The mother could
legally kill the child just to get back at the father for some perceived
wrong, simply by claiming the child would damage her mental health. Do we
really want to go down that road?

How to kill a newborn?

In their paper,
Giubilini and Minerva failed to define exactly how a newborn should be "aborted"
after birth. You could just leave it somewhere crying, until it died of
dehydration or exposure, as has been done in many late-term abortions.
Or, you could use the technique of D & X abortions
(so-called, "partial birth abortions") where scissors are inserted in the
back of the skull to make a hole so that the brains can be sucked out by
aspiration. Both these life-ending abortion techniques probably do not
appeal to you when applied to a living, breathing infant. What kind of
monster would agree to
kill a newborn, especially if she were completely healthy? However, since
she
isn't really a person, should it matter how she were killed? After the
execution, should the body to be
buried or just discarded as "medical waste"?

Biblical perspective

Although I think a logical/scientific approach to the question of infanticide
is sufficient to invalidate its use, the Bible includes several arguments that
are relevant to question. First and foremost, the Bible says that one's worth is
not based upon performance, but is based solely upon being a human being made in
God's image:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created
him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in
the image of God He made man." (Genesis 9:6)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man,
there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:28)

The biblical concepts above are the inspiration for the words of the United States Declaration of Independence,
which declares, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights." Of course, the Bible goes beyond this in saying that
all men and women are created equal.

So, according to the Bible, all human beings are created in the image of
God, which is why Christians value human life from conception to natural
death. The Bible is clear that God shows no partiality toward individuals5
and
commands us to do likewise in our dealings with others.6
The Bible also
declares that human beings are endowed with a spiritual nature even before
birth,7 although it does not specify the exact point at which a fetus becomes a
spiritual being. So, killing an infant or a
fetus destroys a spiritual being created in the image of God—a serious
crime against God.

Isolated opinion?

In case you are thinking that these are just two wacky Australians who are
out-of-touch with reality, you best think again. The fact is that, amazingly
enough, the article survived the peer-review process, which means that at least
two other doctors thought the article was worthy of publication (three reviewed
the manuscript). Why didn't they
catch all the logical errors and non-quantifiable means of assessing personhood?
Since the article is based almost exclusively upon personal opinion rather than
science, one would think that the reviewers would have questioned at least some
of the outrageous assertions. My guess is that the reviewers, in addition to the
authors, accept abortion
ideology without question. Not only did the reviewers accept the article, but
also the editors, who
justified their reasons for publishing the article.

Conclusion

Two medical doctors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, have proposed renaming infanticide to "after birth abortion," declaring that it
should be legalized for an unspecified period of time after the birth of any
child (including those who are perfectly healthy). Their reasoning is that the
newborn has the same mental capacity as a late-term fetus (which can be killed
in the United States for any reason up until the point of birth). Since a fetus
is not a person according to the U.S. Supreme Court,8 it logically
follows that a newborn is, likewise, not a person under the law. Giubilini
and Minerva contend that the desires of actual persons supersede the rights of
"potential persons," including the "right" to kill a newborn for any
reason. Although not stated in the article, this would include the "right" to kill a newborn simply to get back at
the child's father. Although women currently have the sole right to abort their
unborn babies against the wishes of the father, allowing this to happen to the
father of a newborn would be an evil that is almost too extreme to imagine. Giubilini
and Minerva claim that persons must "value their existence" and be able to
express "aims" in order to be classified as persons. However, they provide no
scientific evidence that newborns fail this made-up test of personhood.

The logic allowing the killing of healthy newborns is exactly the same as
that used to support unrestricted abortion. If you are repulsed by the idea
of killing babies, but support unrestricted abortion, we suggest you examine
your abortion stance more completely. Our resource, Secular Arguments Against Abortion will help you do just that.
You don't need to be a religious zealot to oppose abortion. The author of
this article was opposed to abortion when he was an atheist, as do
other atheists.

Testimony of Jill L. Stanek, RN, Hearing on H.R.
4292, the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000", House
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 20, 2000

U.S. Supreme Court Cases on Abortion (Appendix 1)

Roe v. Wade (United
States Supreme Court, 1973)

Jane Roe (a.k.a. Norma
McCorvey), of Texas, claimed to have become pregnant as a result of a
rape. (In 1987, she admitted that she lied about being raped). Two female
lawyers enlisted her aid to test the 100-year old Texas law banning
abortion. They filed a class action lawsuit and won, but not in time to secure an
abortion for their client who gave birth to a daughter and placed her for
adoption. The case made its way to the United States
Supreme Court. On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in
two separate decisions (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), invented a
woman's "right to abortion" (which is not specified in our U.S.
Constitution) based on a "right to privacy." Roe mandated a policy commonly
known as "abortion on demand," according to these guidelines:

The First Trimester: The
Court held that during the first 3 months, the decision to abort must
be completely left to the judgment of the pregnant woman and her
doctor. The State cannot interfere with the abortion decision at all.

The Second Trimester: The
State cannot protect the fetus. The State may promote its interest in
the health of the mother, if it so chooses, by regulating the abortion
procedure in ways that are "reasonably related to maternal
health," i.e., qualifications of abortionist and type of
facility.

The Third Trimester: The
State may, if it chooses, regulate and even forbid abortion to protect
a viable fetus, except where it is necessary for the preservation of
the "health" or the life of the mother.

Doe v. Bolton (United States Supreme
Court, 1973)

In the companion case, Doe,
the Court stated that the health of the mother includes: "physical,
emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." In
other words, "health" essentially means that any stress upon a
pregnant woman justifies an abortion because such factors relate to her
complete well-being.

In essence, these two
decisions gave American women the right to confidential abortion on
demand up to the moment of birth. The particularly chilling aspect of
the 1973 decisions was that the humanity of the preborn child was
purposefully ignored. The Court held that the preborn human is not a
person,8 therefore not deserving of any protection from the government.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (United States Supreme Court, 1992)

The United States Supreme
Court reaffirmed a woman's right to end pregnancy in early stages and
made it clear that a total ban on abortion would be found
unconstitutional. The Court explicitly
reaffirmed Roe v. Wade by a five to four decision. (O'Connor, Kennedy,
Souter, Blackmun and Stevens for Roe; Rehnquist, White Scalia and Thomas
against Roe).

Under this decision,
abortion is still legal for any reason from conception to birth - and the
broad "health" definition for post-viability abortions is
still the law. However, the court did reformulate the legal rationale of
Roe. Instead of the trimester framework, a new "bimester"
framework had been established, with viability the dividing line.

The court also created the
"undue burden" test for reviewing abortion legislation. The
test will look to see whether the abortion regulation's "purpose
or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman
seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." While this
standard still prevents states from prohibiting abortions before
viability, laws that attempt to persuade women from aborting can be
passed. A majority of the Court upheld most of the regulations of the
Pennsylvania Control Act, including the legality of Informed Consent,
24-hour Waiting Period, Parental Consent and Reporting Requirements. The
court, however, struck down spousal notification.

Murder Statutes—All 50 States (Appendix 2)

Section 13A-6-2 - Murder.
(a) A person commits the crime of murder if he or she does any of the
following:
(1) With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes
the death of that person or of another person.

Title 11.
Chapter 41 Section 100. Murder in the First Degree.
AS 11.41.100. Murder in the First Degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of murder in the
first degree if
(1) with intent to cause the death of another
person, the person
(A) causes the death of any person; or
(B) compels or induces any person to commit
suicide through duress or deception;

13-1105. First degree
murder; classification
A. A person commits first degree murder if:
1. Intending or knowing that the person's conduct will cause death, the
person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, with
premeditation or, as a result of causing the death of another person with
premeditation, causes the death of an unborn child.

Title 53a,
Chapter 952: Offenses
Sec. 53a-54a. Murder. (a) A person is guilty of murder when,
with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of
such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or
deception; except that in any prosecution under this subsection, it shall be
an affirmative defense that the defendant committed the proscribed act or
acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there
was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be
determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under
the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, provided nothing
contained in this subsection shall constitute a defense to a prosecution
for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any
other crime.

Delaware Code - Section 636: MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE;
CLASS A FELONY
(a) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
(1) The person intentionally causes the death of another person;
(2) While engaged in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight
after committing or attempting to commit any felony, the person recklessly
causes the death of another person.

Florida Code - CRIMES HOMICIDE Chapter 782
782.04 Murder.
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of
the person killed or any human being;

Georgia Code
Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 1. Homicide
O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 Murder;
felony murder
(a) A person
commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice
aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human
being.

Hawaii Statutes - Section 707-701.5: Murder
in the second degree.
(1) Except as provided in section 707-701, a person commits the offense of
murder in the second degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes
the death of another person.
(2) Murder in the second degree is a felony for which the defendant shall
be sentenced to imprisonment as provided in section 706-656. [L 1986, c 314,
50]

Title 18, Chapter 40 Homicide
18-4001. Murder
defined. Murder
is the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited
to, a human embryo or fetus, with malice aforethought or the
intentional application of torture to a human being, which results
in the death of a human being. Torture is the intentional infliction
of extreme and prolonged pain with the intent to cause suffering. It
shall also be torture to inflict on a human being extreme and
prolonged acts of brutality irrespective of proof of intent to cause
suffering. The death of a human being caused by such torture is
murder irrespective of proof of specific intent to kill; torture
causing death shall be deemed the equivalent of intent to kill.

(720 ILCS 5/9-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-1)
Sec. 9-1. First degree
Murder - Death penalties - Exceptions - Separate Hearings - Proof -
Findings - Appellate procedures - Reversals.
(a) A person who kills an
individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if,
in performing the acts which cause the death:
(1) he either intends to
kill or do great bodily harm to that
individual or another, or knows that such acts will
cause death to that individual or another; or
(2) he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or
great bodily harm to that individual or another; or
(3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second
degree murder.

707.1 MURDER DEFINED.
A person who kills another person with malice aforethought either
express or implied commits murder.
707.2 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
A person commits murder in the first degree when the person commits murder
under any of the following circumstances:
1. The person willfully,
deliberately, and with premeditation kills another person.

Chapter
21: Crimes And Punishments, Part II.--Prohibited Cconduct, Article
34: Crimes Against PersonsStatute 21-3401: Murder in the first degree.
Murder in the first
degree is the killing of a human being committed:
(a) Intentionally and with
premeditation; or
(b) in the commission of,
attempt to commit, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony as
defined in
K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto.

507.020 Murder.
(1) A person is guilty of murder when:
(a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of
such person or of a third person; except that in any prosecution a person
shall not be guilty under this subsection if he acted under the influence of
extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation
or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the
viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances
as the defendant believed them to be. However, nothing contained in this
section shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for or preclude a
conviction of manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime;

RS 14:30 First degree murder
A. First degree murder is the killing of a human being:
(1) When the offender has specific intent to kill or to inflict great
bodily harm and is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of
aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated escape,
aggravated arson, aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated burglary, armed
robbery, assault by drive-by shooting, first degree robbery, second degree
robbery, simple robbery, terrorism, cruelty to juveniles, or second degree
cruelty to juveniles.

Title 17-A: Maine criminal code, part 2: Substantive offenses, Chapter 9:
Offenses against the person
202. Felony murder
1. A person is guilty of felony murder if acting alone or
with one or more other persons in the commission of, or an
attempt to commit, or immediate flight after committing or
attempting to commit, murder, robbery, burglary, kidnapping,
arson, gross sexual assault, or escape, the person or another
participant in fact causes the death of a human being, and the
death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such
commission, attempt or flight.

Maryland Criminal Law Section 2-201
(a) A murder is in the first degree if it is:
(1) a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing;
(2) committed by lying in wait;
(3) committed by
poison; or
(4) committed in the perpetration of or an
attempt to perpetrate:
(i) arson in the first degree;
(ii) burning a barn, stable, tobacco house,
warehouse, or other outbuilding that:
1. is not
parcel to a dwelling; and
2. contains cattle,
goods, wares, merchandise, horses, grain, hay, or tobacco;
(iii) burglary in the first, second, or third degree;
(iv) carjacking or armed carjacking;
(v) escape
in the first degree from a State correctional facility or a local
correctional facility;
(vi) kidnapping under 3-502 or
3-503(a)(2) of this article;
(vii) mayhem;
(viii) rape;
(ix) robbery under
3-402 or 3-403 of this article;
(x) sexual offense in
the first or second degree;
(xi) sodomy; or
(xii) a violation of 4-503 of this article concerning
destructive devices.

General Laws of Massachusetts - Chapter 265 Crimes Against
the Person. - Section 1 Murder defined
Section 1. Murder committed with
deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or
cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder
which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second
degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree
of murder shall be found by the jury.

Michigan Penal Code,Act 328 of 1931
750.316 First degree murder; penalty; definitionSec. 316.
(1) A person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree
murder and shall be punished by imprisonment for life:
(a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other
willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.
(b) Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate,
arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child
abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery,
carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first
or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, vulnerable
adult abuse in the first and second degree under section 145n, torture under
section 85, or aggravated stalking under section 411i.

609.185 Murder in the first degree.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder
in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent
to effect the death of the person or of another;
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to
commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or
violence, either upon or affecting the person or another;

SEC. 97-3-19. Homicide; murder defined; capital murder;
lesser-included offenses.
(1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by
any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases:
(a) When
done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of
any human being;

Chapter 565,
Offenses Against the Person,
Section 565.020
First degree murder, penalty--person under
sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty.
565.020.
1. A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if
he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the
matter.
2. Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment
shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for
probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that,
if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the
commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life
without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the
governor.

Montana Code - Section 45-5-102: Deliberate homicide
(1) A person commits the offense of deliberate homicide if:
(a) the
person purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being; or
(b) the person attempts to commit, commits, or is legally accountable for
the attempt or commission of robbery, sexual intercourse without consent,
arson, burglary, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, felonious escape,
assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, or any other forcible felony and
in the course of the forcible felony or flight thereafter, the person or any
person legally accountable for the crime causes the death of another human
being.

Nebraska Code -
Section 28-303 Murder in the first degree; penalty.
A person commits murder in the first degree if he or she kills another
person (1) purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice, or (2) in
the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any sexual assault in the first
degree, arson, robbery, kidnapping, hijacking of any public or private means
of transportation, or burglary, or (3) by administering poison or causing
the same to be done; or if by willful and corrupt perjury or subornation of
the same he or she purposely procures the conviction and execution of any
innocent person. The determination of whether murder in the first degree
shall be punished as a Class I or Class IA felony shall be made pursuant to
sections 29-2519 to 29-2524.

NJSA 2C:11-3, 2C:11-3. Murder.
a. Except as provided in N.J.S.2C:11-4, criminal homicide constitutes
murder when:
(1) The actor purposely causes death or serious bodily
injury resulting in death; or
(2) The actor knowingly causes death or serious bodily
injury resulting in death; or
(3) It is committed when the actor, acting either alone
or with one or more other persons, is engaged in the commission of, or an
attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit
robbery, sexual assault, arson, burglary, kidnapping, carjacking, criminal
escape or terrorism pursuant to section 2 of P.L.2002, c.26 (C.2C:38-2), and
in the course of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, any person
causes the death of a person other than one of the participants; except that
in any prosecution under this subsection, in which the defendant was not the
only participant in the underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that
the defendant:

New Mexico:
New Mexico Statutes, Chapter 30: Criminal Offenses, Article 2: Homicide
Section 30-2-1: Murder.
A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another
without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death
may be caused:
(1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing;
(2) in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony; or
(3) by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a
depraved mind regardless of human life.

N.Y. PEN. LAW 125.27 : NY Code - Section 125.27: Murder in the first degree
A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of
such person or of a third person; and

SUBCHAPTER III. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON.
Article 6.
Homicide.
14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.
A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological, or
chemical weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14-288.21, poison,
lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of
willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed
in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex
offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or
attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in
the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder
shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life
without parole as the court shall determine pursuant to G.S. 15A-2000,
except that any such person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the
murder shall be punished with imprisonment in the State's prison for life
without parole.

Title 12.1 > Chapter 12.1-16 > 12.1-16-01 - Murder
1. A person is guilty of murder, a class AA felony, if the person:
a. Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being;
b. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to the value of human life; or

Chapter 2903: HOMICIDE AND ASSAULT
2903.01 Aggravated murder.
(A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause
the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.
(B) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful
termination of another's pregnancy while committing or attempting to commit,
or while fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit,
kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery,
aggravated burglary, burglary, trespass in a habitation when a person is
present or likely to be present, terrorism, or escape.

Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 24 - Homicide
Murder
Section 701.7 - Murder in the First Degree
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully
and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice
is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human
being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.

TITLE 11
Criminal Offenses
CHAPTER 11-23
Homicide
SECTION 11-23-1
11-23-1 Murder. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought is murder. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait,
or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
killing, or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any
arson or any violation of 11-4-2, 11-4-3, or 11-4-4, rape, any degree of
sexual assault or child molestation, burglary or breaking and entering,
robbery, kidnapping, or committed during the course of the perpetration, or
attempted perpetration, of felony manufacture, sale, delivery, or other
distribution of a controlled substance otherwise prohibited by the
provisions of chapter 28 of title 21, or committed against any law
enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duty or committed
against an assistant attorney general or special assistant attorney general
in the performance of his or her duty, or perpetrated from a premeditated
design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being
other than him or her who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Any
other murder is murder in the second degree. The degree of murder may be
charged in the indictment or information, and the jury may find the degree
of murder, whether the murder is charged in the indictment or information or
not, or may find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense than that charged
in the indictment or information, in accordance with the provisions of
12-17-14.

Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
CHAPTER 3.
OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 1.
HOMICIDE
SECTION 16-3-5. Person causing injury which results in death at least three
years later not to be prosecuted for homicide.
A person who causes bodily injury which results in the death of the victim
is not criminally responsible for the victim's death and must not be
prosecuted for a homicide offense if at least three years intervene between
the injury and the death of the victim.
HISTORY: 2001 Act No. 97, Section 1.
SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.
"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either
express or implied.

Title 76
Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 5 Offenses Against the Person
Section 202 Aggravated murder.
76-5-202. Aggravated murder.
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes aggravated murder if the actor
intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under any of the
following circumstances:

Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter 53: HOMICIDE
13 V.S.A. 2301. Murder-Degrees defined
2301. Murder-Degrees defined
Murder committed by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by wilful,
deliberate and premeditated killing, or committed in perpetrating or
attempting to perpetrate arson, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery or burglary, shall be murder in the first degree. All other kinds of
murder shall be murder in the second degree. (Amended 1983, No. 28, 1.)

18.2-31. Capital murder defined; punishment.
The following offenses shall constitute capital murder, punishable as a
Class 1 felony:
1. The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the
commission of abduction, as defined in 18.2-48, when such abduction was
committed with the intent to extort money or a pecuniary benefit or with the
intent to defile the victim of such abduction;

RCW 9A.32.010
Homicide defined.
Homicide is the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or
omission of another, death occurring at any time, and is either (1) murder,
(2) homicide by abuse, (3) manslaughter, (4) excusable homicide, or (5)
justifiable homicide.

CHAPTER 61. CRIMES AND THEIR PUNISHMENT.
ARTICLE 2. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON.
61-2-1. First and second degree murder defined; allegations in indictment
for homicide.
Murder by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful,
deliberate and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to
commit, arson, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, breaking and
entering, escape from lawful custody, or a felony offense of manufacturing
or delivering a controlled substance as defined in article four, chapter
sixty-a of this code, is murder of the first degree. All other murder is
murder of the second degree.

940.01 First-degree intentional homicide.
(1) Offenses.
(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another
human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class
A felony.

CHAPTER 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE
6-2-101. Murder in the first degree; penalty.
(a) Whoever purposely and with premeditated malice, or in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, any sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor,
arson, robbery, burglary, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping or abuse of a
child under the age of sixteen (16) years, kills any human being is guilty
of murder in the first degree.

References

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the
answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person.
This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The
concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a
religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and
therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul
Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado ("Opinions:
PAUL CAMPOS: Abortion and the rule of law," Scripps Howard News Service,
January 23, 2002, at http://www.nandotimes.com).

"For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords,
the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show
partiality nor take a bribe. (Deuteronomy 10:17)

Who shows no partiality to princes Nor regards the rich above
the poor, For they all are the work of His hands? (Job 34:19)

And they *sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying,
"Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth,
and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. (Matthew 22:16)

They *came and *said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and
defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in
truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? (Mark 12:14)

They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach
correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in
truth. (Luke 20:21)

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God
is not one to show partiality, (Acts 10:34)

For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 2:11)

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no
difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of
reputation contributed nothing to me. (Galatians 2:6)

And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing
that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality
with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)

For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he
has done, and that without partiality. (Colossians 3:25)

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each
one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on
earth; (1 Peter 1:17)

Christians are not to show partiality:

nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute. (Exodus 23:3)

'You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the
poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.
(Leviticus 19:15)

'You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and
the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's. The case
that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.'
(Deuteronomy 1:17)

"You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall
not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the
words of the righteous. (Deuteronomy 16:19)

"Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you
do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality
or the taking of a bribe." (2 Chronicles 19:7)

"He will surely reprove you If you secretly show partiality. (Job 13:10)

"Let me now be partial to no one, Nor flatter any man. (Job 32:21)

How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked?
Selah. (Psalms 82:2)

To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to thrust aside the
righteous in judgment. (Proverbs 18:5)

These also are sayings of the wise. To show partiality in judgment is not
good. (Proverbs 24:23)

To show partiality is not good, Because for a piece of bread a man will
transgress. (Proverbs 28:21)

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of
His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing
in a spirit of partiality. (1 Timothy 5:21)

But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by
the law as transgressors. (James 2:9)

Prophets called from the womb:

Samson:Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A man of God came
to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very
awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his
name. "But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a
son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean
thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his
death.'" (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)

Jesus (prophecy):

Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD
called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. (Isaiah
49:1)

And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To
bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I
am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), (Isaiah
49:5)

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me
trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou
hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalm 22:9-10)

Jeremiah:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born
I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah
1:5)

John the Baptist:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no
wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his
mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

Paul:

But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me
through His grace, was pleased (Galatians 1:15)

"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the
major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were
far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word 'person,' as used
in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/infanticide_baby_killing.html
Last Modified April 12, 2012